If there is such an absolutely ridiculous phrase that could catch the attention of any of you, maybe it's this one.      

It's the contention that,    
every liberal idea needs a conservative application.    

Of course, you wouldn't agree that the opposite is true.  However, could
every conservative idea use a liberal demonstration?

Before I LOSE your attention I'd like everyone to consider that no-one is in opposition to conservative ideology!  Even the most low lefty liberal won't admit that tax cuts are good, abortion is wrong, that we need a military, and that people need to learn to help themselves.  My point is that maybe if you take the conservative ideology and combine it with the 'appeal (key word) of a culture of liberalism and the media' to 'demonstrate' its effectiveness we'd get more things done.  For example:    

A criminal should be made to work or pay for his stay in jail, while he serves his time.  We have this type of system but not on a grand scale simply because of violent criminals.  Liberals want to spend money on rehabilitation.  In my view they should also pay for their rehabilitation if at the least most of the cost.  We want to help people, and it teaches them to be self-reliant and responsible and everyone likes the idea of encourageing a safe and functional society.  

Energy and climate change are huge issues right now, especially with liberals.  If we convert to free energy we will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs, which is why the utility and auto industries should be 'persuaded' into innovating free energy into their existing companies instead of creating new businesses.  Energy independence is something we all agree on.  Squeezing the consumer's wallet with phenomenal gas prices is a liberal idea.

The idea of a 'health insurance company' to me is not just liberal, it's un-American.  For the simple fact that this money goes to something else besides medical health and doesn't go to doctors and hospitals, this idea is ridiculous. 

There are so many problems that we already have the answers to, but both sides think they have the answer.  And it is this paradigm that renders government ineffective.  I'm all against abortion, so maybe we need more women making that decision for the governments people, instead of a political field of men interfering in circumstances they know not of.  

What if politicians had to make up a 'represntative contract' that legally bound the elected official to his/her promises?  Much like the former mayor of New York Guilliani, losing the first election being pro-life, then winning his next bid by switching that one position.  Whether he's pro-choice or not, he had to represent his people the way they wanted him to.  And similar to Mit Romney who took the same position of pro-choice representing the wishes of Mass.  He may have really been pro-life but then would win having had to conform to the wishes of his people.  Of course not every issue would be compatable in this format, but the idea is that they would forfeit their seat in office if positions suddenly flipped without consulting the voters.  A politician who lied would be a rare occasion.

These ideas aren't necassarilly conservative on the fore-front, however neither is working within the surroundings of the opposing point of view.  I'm also asking all to consider that money and power has corrupted this country more than ever.  Homosexuality and abortion are destroying our country?  So do greed and gluttony, and they seem to be more prevalent in our society.     

What most people don't know is that John McCain is now (especially after the SC victory) the biggest worry of the conservative establishment. If you don't believe it, just listen to "Talk Radio" or the 'MSNBC bias' that has become so prevalent on much of the coverage of the SC republican primary. Prominent conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and most of Fox News have labeled him as a liberal.
Rightly so, are his policies on immigration, taxes, and just about everything conservatives stand for says that McCain is in for even more opposition.
Consequentially, his failing immigration stance, position on gay marriage and gun rights, are all taking issue with social cons. Economic conservatives (in my view 'ironically') complain about his defiance with tax cuts during a time of war (even though the it's the economy that is now the main political issue). He's now seen as being the most popular and well-known bush-opposing republican, thumbing his nose and enjoying media attention. And through it all, he fights with his popular war stance, with the support primarily deriving from independent moderates. If the Iraq war hasn't hurt conservatives now, it is this man that sets back the agenda.
More conservatives are taking an "Anybody-But-McCain" type of attitude. And the forces which brought him down in 2000, and helped G.W. Bush become president, silently re-emerge.  The "Maverick" has become the greatest divide in the conservative-republican movement, and now stands for 'change' in just about everything but the war. And his nomination rival will be a Mormon Gov. with deep pockets.  If John McCain is the nominee, conservatives will hope that he keeps his promises.